Upside Down Economics

Despite much better economy, networks blamed President Bush more than President Obama for financial troubles.

By

Julia A. Seymour

November 1, 2012 - 9:10am

Presidential elections have been won or lost due to
the economy. Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Jimmy Carter
lost to Ronald Reagan. This election season is no different as polls, including
a recent one from NBC News/Wall Street Journal, continue to show the economy is
the top concern of voters.

But the network news media often skew economic
coverage in favor of liberal candidates and against conservatives. In September
2012, President Barack Obama continued to face a barrage of poor economic news
including a GDP downgrade to 1.3 percent, an unemployment rate still
above 8 percent and “record” high gas prices. But media coverage of economic
issues from that month did not accurately reflect that turmoil. When President
George W. Bush sought re-election in 2004, during the exact same time period,
broadcast coverage criticized him on the economy despite a GDP of 3.3 percent, an unemployment rate of just 5.4 percent and gas prices
a low $1.82.

The Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute compared ABC, CBS and NBC morning and
evening news coverage for the entire month of September in 2004 and 2012, just
as re-election campaigns were shifting into high gear. BMI analyzed the news stories and briefs that mentioned the economy or one
of seven major economic issues, ranging from employment to gas prices. Here is
what BMI found:

Bush Blamed
More than Twice as Often as Obama for Economy: In 2004, President Bush was blamed in more than 14
percent of stories (21 out of 143) for something including his “record on jobs”
and the “huge” deficit. But in 2012, President Obama was criticized for current
economic problems in just 6 percent of the stories (15 out of 249).

Gas 99%
Higher, Oil 84% Higher in 2012, Covered 3 Times More in 2004: When oil rose to a record price of roughly $50 a
barrel in September 2004, NBC warned it “could put the president’s reelection
hopes into a skid” and be a drag on the overall economy. At that time gas
prices were under $2 a gallon. In 2012, the networks said little about the
$92-a-barrel oil prices. But they did report on “record” high gas prices around
$3.83 a gallon, often predicting “relief is in sight.”

iPhone to
Rescue Obama Economy? The growth or
decline of the Gross Domestic Product was barely mentioned in 2004 or 2012, but
in 2012 the networks fixated on a claim that sales of the iPhone 5 could
“boost” GDP 1/2 of a percentage point. That was repeated in 9
reports, 3 times more often than they mentioned the latest report that showed
economic growth forecasts for the second quarter had been downgraded to an
anemic 1.3 percent.

The
Business and Media Institute offers a series of recommendations for the media
in an effort to help journalists provide more balanced reporting on the
economy, especially during a heated election season. Those recommendations
include:

Don't Spin the Economy: Reporters
should be embarrassed over their glee at the prospect of iPhone sales boosting GDP, the same month
they barely mentioned that economic growth was downgraded from 1.7 percent to
1.3 percent. They should also be ashamed of refusing to talk about sustained
high gasoline prices under Obama, after years of predicting $4, $5 and $6
gasoline under Bush. Networks should drop the spin and tell negative stories
negatively, and positive ones positively.

Be Consistent: If 5.4 percent unemployment was bad
for Bush, shouldn’t 8.1 percent unemployment have been an even bigger problem
facing Obama? Economic data should be treated consistently regardless of who is
president. If the number discredits a Republican administration, it should also
discredit a Democrat.

Mention
Economic Data More Often and Make it Relatable: One of the sad facts about network coverage of
economics is how little there is of it. In both time periods, there was little
coverage of GDP, the labor participation rate and consumer
confidence. The networks should try harder to talk about these data points, not
with a one sentence anchor read, but with an explanation of what those numbers
mean or reflect about our nation’s economy.

In 1992, then-candidate Bill Clinton completely
altered the momentum of the presidential race by pushing a theme saying: “It’s
the economy, stupid.” The U.S. economy remains front and center in the presidential
race 20 years later.

But how the news media cover that economy can have
enormous impact on the election. When President George W. Bush ran for
reelection in 2004, the economy was once again a major media focus. Bush was
skewered by the press over jobs as the voting neared, despite a 5.4 percent
unemployment rate. Over and over again, the economy was mentioned negatively in
regards to Bush – often by saying it was what his opponent, Sen. John Kerry,
should campaign on.

When Bush triumphed, he did so despite the media
coverage.

Eight years later, that has changed. President Barack
Obama oversees a far worse economy than Bush did. Even Paul Wiseman of the
Associated Press wrote that “Economic growth has never been weaker in a postwar
recovery.” Unemployment stood at 8.1 percent in September, close to 3 percent
higher than it had been under Bush at the exact same point in his term.

GDP was downgraded to 1.3 percent and unemployment and underemployment
combined to put 23 million Americans in awful financial straits.

President Bush was criticized for years by the news
media on economic issues. High gas prices and “record high” oil prices formed
the basis for some of the attacks. But jobs were another major focus. The
unemployment rate had risen to 6.3 percent in 2003, but dropped by to just 5.4
percent by September 2004.

By contrast, the Obama economy has received far less
criticism in network reports. The lead up to the election was marred by high
unemployment, low workforce participation, record debt and gas and oil prices
nearly double the Bush numbers. Yet President Obama received many free passes
in coverage.

In September 2004, the economy was humming along
quite well compared to the same month eight years later. In fact, September
2004 outperformed September 2012 in a dozen key economic measures. (SEE CHART)

In September 2004, the national unemployment rate
stood at 5.4 percent; it was announced that 144,000 jobs had been added in the
prior month; the economy was expected to grow at 3.3 percent for the second quarter,
and gasoline cost just $1.92-a-gallon. Even the $7.4 trillion federal debt,
which people on both sides of the aisle criticized Bush seems almost quaint by
comparison to today.

Now consider the very same month in 2012. Obama
presided over 8.1 percent unemployment, only 96,000 jobs were added in August.
(The October jobs report revised that total, but that came after the study
period.), Gasoline hit records for Labor Day weekend at $3.83-a-gallon, almost
exactly 100 percent higher than it had been eight years earlier.

By a dozen economic measures, things are much worse
now. Yet Bush was blamed more than twice as often for economic woes – in more
than 14 percent of economic stories, compared to just 6 percent for Obama.

CBS chief national correspondent Byron Pitts, found a
man on the street who blamed Bush for his troubles on Sept. 15, 2004. Pitts said, “Over the last four years, Mr.
Jolliffie’s worked longer hours for less money. He blames President George W.
Bush, but he’s still not sold on Senator John Kerry.” Pitts also made Kerry’s
argument for him, mentioning Bush’s “highest deficit in history” and the “most
job losses of any administration in the last 72 years.”

But in 2012, there was little indictment from
politicians or reporters about Obama’s $1-trillion per year budget deficits. In
fact, on Sept. 6, “Good Morning America” allowed White House senior adviser
David Plouffe to claim the Obama administration had “cut over $3 trillion in
spending, more than what was called for in the Bowles-Simpson plan.”

Interviewer George Stephanopoulos, formerly of the Clinton administration himself, didn’t mention that the
federal debt was then $16.1 trillion, or that that the president got zero Senate votes in favor of his 2012
budget[1]. Not just zero Republican
votes. No Democrats voted for his budget either.

The networks even let President Obama himself slam
his political opponents Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on the deficit issue, without
pointing out his big spending ways.

There was also a stark contrast when it came to the
media coverage of jobs. Bush was attacked on the topic eight years ago, while
Obama rarely was – in spite of the fact that there were 4.5 million more
unemployed during the 2012 time period.

NBC’s “Today” found a young voter on Sept. 28, 2004, who condemned the President Bush over the issue. “I
really think Bush has ruined the economy. We’ve lost so many jobs, and I
haven’t seen him do anything to really fix it,” the voter said. Never mind that
the Bush economy had already weathered a spike in unemployment stemming from
the 9/11 attacks and the dotcom collapse Bush inherited from President Clinton.

The young voter’s criticism was the same Bush’s
political opponent had been using earlier that month. As CBS’s Pitts said
on Sept. 3, 2004, “today
[Sen. John] Kerry slammed the president’s record on jobs.” Kerry said, “I think
that doing nothing, when millions of Americans are losing their jobs over four
years and doing nothing, makes you unfit to lead this nation.” “Evening News”
report didn’t include any defenders of the president or his record, nor did
Pitts push back against the attack.

The media even helped Kerry try to link Bush to
President Herbert Hoover. ABC’s Betsy Stark said on Sept. 23, 2004, “one [campaign claim] seems to resonate above the
rest.” Which one? Kerry’s claim that “All 11 presidents, from Herbert Hoover
on, created jobs in America, except George W. Bush.” Stark went on to tell
viewers that there were 900,000 fewer jobs than when Bush took office, although
she did remind people of the recession and war that followed 9/11 “put a deep
chill on hiring.”

FactCheck.org had debunked the Hoover comparison long before Stark’s report, saying “In
fact, the economy lost a smaller percentage of jobs[2] in the Bush downturn than in seven of the ten
previous downturns going back to 1945 when the federal government began keeping
the statistics on total non-farm employment.” Media Bush/Hoover comparisons
were part of the spin mentioned in the MRC’s list of Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign
2004[3].

But in September 2012, job issues were covered very
differently. In fact, NBC’s “Today” optimistically reported on Sept. 20, that “New
census data shows the U.S. economy may be on the road to recovery. Figures from
2011 show more young Americans are now moving out of their parents’ homes to go
to college or to hit the job market.” Although Natalie Morales mentioned that
the unemployment rate remained “elevated” she did not mention the actual rate
of 8.1% or the president.

One of the rare instances of blame for Obama came from
MSNBC’s sometime conservative Joe Scarborough, while he was busy criticizing
Romney’s campaign on NBCs “Today.” Scarborough complained that conservatives
“can’t believe that Mitt Romney is blowing a race against a president who they
believe has mismanaged the economy terribly over the past four years, has spent
us $5 trillion deeper into debt, has run $1 trillion deficits per year. ...
Unemployment is still 8 percent! Plus the economy is still in tatters.”

Even an Associated Press analysis of recoveries following
the last 10 U.S. recessions concluded the 2012 recovery has been the worst.
AP’s Paul Wiseman wrote, “Economic growth has never been weaker in a postwar
recovery. Consumer spending has never been so slack. Only once has job growth
been slower.” But you would hardly know that from the network stories
mentioning economics in the month of September.

Gas and oil prices impact everyone, and “records” are
sure to grab headlines. So it was no surprise that in 2004 and 2012 the price
of fuel made news. But much lower ‘04 “record” oil and gas prices made the
network news more than 3 times more often than 2012 records for gasoline (22
percent of stories compared to 6.8 percent).

Hurricanes helped drive oil prices to $48.86 by the
last week of September 2004. (it had been higher during the month, but BMI compared Energy Information Administration data for the final week of
each month.) The networks pointed to it as a re-election threat, pain for
everyone in the economy, and noted that relief wasn’t coming “anytime soon.”
Gas prices in that same month closed around $1.92-a-gallon.

It was NBC’s Matt Lauer who reported crude oil’s
surge to more than $50 a barrel. Even though Bush had little to do with the
surge, Lauer said it “could put the president’s re-election hopes into a skid,”
on “Today” Sept. 29. The same morning, his colleague Anne Thompson declared
that “experts don’t think we’ll see any kind of relief any time soon.”

The night before, ABC’s Betsy Stark even mentioned
the “r” word in her “World News Tonight” report on soaring oil. After
interviewing oil analyst Phil Flynn, Stark said “Fifty-dollar oil is not
expected to push the economy, as a whole, into a recession. But it is causing plenty
of pain for truckers, airlines, and anybody on a budget who drives.”

“[T]he days of $15 and $20 a barrel oil are probably
gone forever,” Stark concluded gloomily.

Since 2004, gas and oil prices have nearly doubled,
and by September 2012 it was gasoline prices that were setting records after a
sustained national average of $3 or higher since Dec. 23, 2010. In the last
week of September 2012, a barrel of crude oil cost $92.89 and an average gallon
of gas $3.83. Yet, network reporters in 2012 routinely found reasons to be
optimistic on gas prices, saying relief was on the way.

The broadcast networks certainly had a glass half
empty outlook in 2004, but by September 2012 news outlets were finding the
glass half-full. Repeatedly especially on ABC, it was only a matter of time
until prices dropped.

Journalists put on a positive spin as gasoline prices
set records for the time of year on Labor Day weekend, Gas prices typically
drop during the fall due to the switch to winter blends, so that change should
have been notable. Instead, ABC’s Diane Sawyer said “relief is in sight and
soon” on Sept. 4. Gasoline cost $3.84 a gallon that day, but correspondent Alex
Perez optimistically noted prices that “our experts predict by thanksgiving,
average gas prices will drop to about $3.25 or $3.50 a gallon, a big
improvement.”

Just a few days earlier, on Sept. 1, “Good Morning
America” looked forward to a potential 20-cent a gallon price drop by October.
Stories on NBC, in spite of the “sticker shock,” had also predicted prices
would come down, between “Thanksgiving and Christmas,” conveniently after the
election.

The 2012 stories ignored Obama’s anti-oil and gas
policies. In fact they didn’t mention the president at all. Nor did they remind
people that gas prices were much lower when he took office in January 2009, or
that gas prices have been above $3-a-gallon since December 2010.

The broadcast networks were so desperate for good
news to talk about in 2012, all three of them reported a claim that the iPhone
5 was expected to sell so well it would could increase the nation’s Gross
Domestic Product. Reports varied, predicting an increase between .3 percent and
1 percent.

All six stories mentioning GDP on NBC in the study window were about the iPhone 5. In one of those NBC
reports, they found an expert who was predicting a far larger boost to GDP than the other networks. “Today” quoted Gene Munster, a digital media
technology analyst, on Sept. 13. Munster claimed the “huge” sales “could add
close to one percent to our overall GDP.”

On Sept. 22, “This Morning” CBS’s Michelle Miller
announced that Apple stock had gone up with the release of the iPhone 5 saying,
“That’s good news for the company, perhaps even better news for the nation’s
economy.” She turned to CNET’s executive editor Roger Cheng who declared, “The
iPhone 5 can actually bump the GDP by half a
percentage point, which is incredible. No other single product has moved the
needle of GDP.”

All together, the networks aired 9 pieces about the
Apple product’s sales boosting GDP in
September 2012, and every one of those failed to mention the current rate of
economic growth. That was 3 times as many stories as the networks did about the
growth forecast being downgraded to a pathetic 1.3 percent. (There was one
additional story mentioning GDP, in which
President Clinton mentioned how much GDP had shrank before Obama took office).

ABC, CBS and NBC continued to have trouble with
consistency when it came to debt and deficits. Sound reasoning would suggest
that if a $400 billion deficit was a “huge” problem in 2004, then $1-trillion
deficits would be a similar or greater threat in 2012. And the sky high $16.1
trillion debt of 2012 should be a bigger
problem now than the $7.1 trillion debt of 2004.

That was not the case.

Eight years ago, Bush’s deficits were indicted by
reporters and politicians. In 2012, a few stories included political criticism
of the massive debts incurred by Obama, but he was often allowed to deflect or
shift blame on the subject. Networks repeatedly included Democratic attacks on
the GOP on the issue.

On Sept. 14, 2004, “Today,” Katie Couric warned
viewers that discussing the deficit could be nauseating. “This morning, taxes
and the deficit. You might want to grab an air sickness bag for this one,” she
said. Couric said the “sky-high budget deficit” was the “most dangerous storm”
facing the economy, according to some economists.

ABC took a theatrical approach. “Good Morning
America” invited the inappropriate puppets from the lefty play “Avenue Q” to
hold a mock Bush/Kerry debate. Most of the mockery was directed at Bush, from
the puppet that was pretending to be him.

“Well, hey America, I’ve got big plans for this
country. Yeah, if you think you’re excited now, wait ‘til you get me
re-elected,” the Bush puppet said. “If I am re-elected, hey, remember that $300
check that I sent everybody back in 2001? Well, if I’m re-elected, I will be
the best lame duck president ever. I will up the deficit and I’ll, and I’ll
one-up on Oprah and I’ll give everyone SUV’s. How’s that? There you go.”

In 2004, reporters called the budget deficit of $422
billion “massive,” “huge” and something the president would have to defend.
CBS’s Bob Schieffer even gave Sen. John Kerry some free advice on Sept. 23,
saying he’s “got to start talking” about the economy and “what’s ahead if we
don’t begin to bring down this deficit.”

But in 2012, CBS’s political director John Dickerson
gave Obama a pass on the identical topic, saying “on the question of the
[national] debt, I mean, it’s a great question. You know, it’s also not the
president’s fault alone that this hasn’t been solved.”

NBC’s Matt Lauer casually noticed that the deficit
numbers for Obama were “bad,” but used them to make the Romney campaign look
incompetent. Lauer asked Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie: “Since the
Democratic convention, there’s been a string of bad news on the economy, the
jobs numbers, the deficit numbers and yet, while the challenger in this race,
Mitt Romney, should be taking advantage of that, by just about every estimate
this was a bad week for his campaign, would you agree?”

In other stories, Obama and his Democratic allies
actually attacked the GOP on debt and deficit issues. Sen. Chuck Schumer,
D-N.Y., even caused a stir on CBS “This Morning” when he defended calling Paul
Ryan a “fraud” when it comes to the deficit.

“The sad fact is that U.S. federal debt will soon
reach economically damaging levels, and spending will be the driver of that
explosion. The three major entitlements – Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid – will accelerate spending growth in the future due to demographic
changes and rising health care costs,” Alison Acosta Fraser, Heritage
Foundation’s director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, warned in a June 5 Issue Brief.

It’s easy to conclude there was an enormous imbalance
of economic coverage from 2004 to 2012. From stories that merely mentioned the
word “economy,” to specific economic issues, the networks proved unwilling to
hold President Obama to the same scrutiny to which they’d subjected President
Bush.

It is clear from September 2004 reports that the
networks viewed the economy under Bush to be a big problem for his re-election.
Ironically, in 2012, even though journalists noted many times that Mitt Romney
would need to campaign on the economy (implicitly saying Obama’s economy was a
problem) they often turned those points into criticism of the Romney campaign,
rather than a problem for the administration.

In other cases, such as gas and
oil records, network reporters spoke pessimistically in 2004, but
optimistically in 2012 – when prices were nearly double. ABC, CBS and NBC
reports were also wildly inconsistent on issues of debt and deficits.

In an election season marked by
repeated allegations of media bias, this difference in economic coverage stands
out as tangible proof that journalists do not treat conservatives and liberals
the same way.

BMI analyzed 392 stories and news briefs from those two
periods that mentioned the terms in context of the U.S. economic situation.
Briefs were included in the count because economic data often received only a
sentence or two from a news anchor, rather than a full story.

Recommendations

The
Business and Media Institute offers a series of recommendations for the media
in an effort to help journalists provide more balanced reporting on the
economy, especially during a heated election season. Those recommendations
include:

Don't Spin the Economy: Reporters
should be embarrassed over their glee at the prospect of iPhone sales boosting GDP, the same month
they barely mentioned that economic growth was downgraded from 1.7 percent to
1.3 percent. They should also be ashamed of refusing to talk about sustained
high gasoline prices under Obama, after years of predicting $4, $5 and $6
gasoline under Bush. Networks should drop the spin and tell negative stories
negatively, and positive ones positively.

Be Consistent: If 5.4 percent unemployment was bad
for Bush, shouldn’t 8.1 percent unemployment have been an even bigger problem
facing Obama? Economic data should be treated consistently regardless of who is
president. If the number discredits a Republican administration, it should also
discredit a Democrat.

Mention
Economic Data More Often and Make it Relatable: One of the sad facts about network coverage of
economics is how little there is of it. In both time periods, there was little
coverage of GDP, the labor participation rate and consumer
confidence. The networks should try harder to talk about these data points, not
with a one sentence anchor read, but with an explanation of what those numbers
mean or reflect about our nation’s economy.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.